LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for TSE Archives


TSE Archives

TSE Archives


TSE@PO.MISSOURI.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

TSE Home

TSE Home

TSE  June 2001

TSE June 2001

Subject:

Re: The Hollow Men and the end of the universe

From:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Tue, 26 Jun 2001 08:23:37 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (157 lines)



From:  Tom Gray@MITEL on 06/26/2001 08:23 AM





I have tried to send this out to the list previously and for some reason, I
receive nothing back from the list. I'm trying one last time. Please excuse me
if you have received duplicate copies.



--- Ken Armstrong <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> At 11:43 AM 06/23/2001 +0100, you wrote:
> >On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 17:35:06 -0400, you wrote:
> >
> >Newton's descriptions are one set of descriptions
> of the world which
> >are now seen as being a subset or speical case
> (subject to the Lorentz
> >transformations) of the special and general
> theories of relativity.
>
>     That sounds like an allforabit right there, but
> I'm not up on physics
> (to put it mildly). Do you mean that there is peace
> and harmony in the
> physics community on the question of the relation of
> Newton's laws to
> Einstein's visa vis Heisenberg? Just my weekly
> perusals of the NY Times
> Book Review make that seem unlikely, but maybe you
> could say just a bit
> (for all, or holos can you go?) more?
>
>   And then what of Blake and "Newton's swoon" etc?
> Was Blake just not privy
> to Heisenberg, in absolute chronological terms, or
> did he have a legitimate
> beef?
>
> >The relationships of the various sets of
> descriptions, including those
> >not yet formulated, are set out in Physics and
> Philosophy by
> >Heisenberg.
> >
> >There is no overturning but a succession of
> paradigms which must each
> >be taken as a whole:
>
>     It does sound nice, but the skeptic in me gets
> glum thinking of
> "relationships...set out" among things that don't
> exist.
>
>
> >"When a part so ptee does duty for the holos we
> soon grow to use of an
> >allforabit." FW p19
> >
> >One paradigm's science is another paradigm's poetry
> / mythology.
>
>     Maybe, but we're not seeing the universe in a
> grain of sand here, are
> we? Isn't this ("grow use to") a habit of mind, the
> habit being here taking
> the ptee part for the whole?
>
>   Does Tom Gray have some thoughts on this?
>

 It all depends on what one means by science. I think
that the above description is an amalgam of the
realist and pragmatic views of the purpose of science.

If one views science as creating ever more accurate
pictures of the  world then the references to old
models being subsets or a special case of a new and
better model makes sense.

Theories in this case are supposed to be accurate
descriptions of reality. In more modern descriptions
that I have seen (the current issue of American
Scientist), they are reality. This view combines
idealism with empiricism by despairing of the human
capacity to truly understand reality. Quantum theory,
for example, makes predictions that are beyond the
intuition of human beings (events being influenced by
the results of choices made after the event occurs for
example). In this view the mathematics is the reality
and the observations are only one reification of it -
a very Platonian concept.

A contrasting view is that science is a human endeavor
designed to answer the questions that are important to
its practitioners. This view better explains how
science really operates since empirical observations
that contradict current theories abound. Science must
proceed to answer important questions and observations
which cannot be explained defer scientists from this
task. They are best ignored rather being allowed to
cause distraction from more important work.

Theories in this view are simply instrumental; they
are set up to provide answers to questions. The nature
of reality just does not enter into the issue.

In this view Aristotle's science is as good as
Newton's. They are simply set up to answer different
questions. We understand Newton better because of the
society we are in. Aristotle's science makes no sense
to us since we do not understand the questions it is
asking.

Newton's science is reductive. It sets itself up to
find certainty by reducing the problem to things in
which it can find certainty in. It explicitly makes
assumptions and builds a structure from these
assumptions. At least that is how it is supposed to
occur. Whether eal scientists really work this way is
open to much debate.

We have been educated n Newton's reductionism and so
find Aristotle's science puzzling. However Aristotle
saw as his problem the issue of explaining the complex
systems that surround us all. Newton rejects telos and
 teleology but we see all around us teleogical systems
(our bodies for example). If one sees Aristotle's work
in that light then much of what he said makes absolute
sense and his other explanations can be seen as
attempts to apply the same means.

Current systems addressing issues in complexity are
using teleological principles in order to make sense
of events. Inanimate agents are ascribed the capacity
of intentions and intentionality as a means of
understanding complex non-linear behavior.

Newton and Aristole are asking different questions.
Aristotle cannot explain Newotnian mechanics but
Newtonian physics collapses in complxity when
addressing real world problems - six of one, half a
dozen of the other.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/




Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



PO.MISSOURI.EDU

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager